We don’t need amnesty or work verification or bingo or pink elephants or anything else to secure the border. All we need is the will to do it.

The “comprehensive immigration reform bill” is an example of the oldest con game in Washington and goes on decade after decade. Our representatives tell us, ”Give us what we want, and then we promise we will give you what you want. Trust us.” Somehow, it never quite works out for “we the people.”

How do you cut the bloated federal budget? Any reasonable person will tell you that you simply cut the budget!

That isn’t the way it works in Washington. First, they pass a massive new multi-year budget plan (that just coincidently gets rid of the current plan with limits that are just about to kick in). The new plan is not all that different from the old plan. It calls for a plethora of new spending in the first couple of years (to get everyone on board). The cuts come several years down the road but, surprise, surprise, before those cuts ever materialize, a new and “improved” budget plan is offered, and so it goes.

In the meantime, all this new spending has driven up the Current Services Baseline to the point where even the original cuts now are viewed as draconian.

How do you cut welfare spending? You simply cut welfare spending!

Anybody remember the welfare reform bill that was passed when Clinton was president that was hailed as such a success? The biggest problem with that bill is that it didn’t cut the welfare budget. There was something in there called “maintenance of effort.” Very simply, it means you have to keep spending what you are spending right now, forever – even if there is only one person left on the welfare rolls, or no one at all.

It didn’t take folks long to discover there were holes in that bill big enough to drive a Mack truck through. And the government keeps trolling for new welfare recipients so the welfare rolls keep getting larger and larger. A government bureaucracy is the closest thing to eternal life we have on this earth.

We now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that our government has the technology to track a flea on a dog’s back. It can tell you the color of the flea’s eyes and how much of the dog’s blood it ate for breakfast. Furthermore, if that flea used an ATM machine, made a phone call, went on Facebook or used a credit card, we know it.

Seriously, does anyone in their right mind think that the most powerful country in the world can’t secure its border?

We can debate the best way to do that or simply use everything at our disposal: technology, air surveillance and the fence. We can finish the one we started and build a couple more. Whatever the cost, it pales in comparison to granting amnesty to 10 million low-skilled illegals and leaving the border wide open, which is – don’t kid yourself – what this bill will do.

Let us not forget manpower. Pass a flat tax and get rid of 95 percent of the out-of-control IRS. Put all of those out-of-work IRS agents on the border (let them sweat a little for a change) and arm them with AK-47s, stun guns or whatever. Just put them to work doing something productive for a change.

Remember the amnesty bill of 1986? (Those who don’t learn from the mistakes of the past are sure to repeat them.) Our elected representatives can give you all kinds of reasons why that bill didn’t work. Some may be valid, and we can discuss those when it comes time to pass an amnesty bill, but this is not the time!

That bill didn’t work because we didn’t secure the border, and we never will with empty promises.

However, the real reason that bill didn’t work is that we allowed our elected representatives to fool us into accepting an empty promise. We are the problem!

Let’s be clear: Democrats want to legalize a hoard of new people because they think they can control them, and it will mean new votes. Republicans want cheap labor.

The message that should be sent to Washington is, “Secure the border first!” If you can’t get that done, we will send you home where you can get a real job, if you are able.

First things first!

When you hear someone mention that today, he or she is regarded as a complete nincompoop, who has little regard for children.

Most people don’t remember life before the federal Department of Education. It was created in 1979 by Jimmy Carter, and we did quite well without it.

In fact, the Department of Education has only two official functions: to advise and to gobble tax dollars. It failed miserably at the former and succeeded extremely well in the latter. In 1979, the Education Department had 3,000 employees and a budget of $12 billion. Today it has over 5,000 employees. The current budget request calls is for over $71 billion in discretionary funds, $7 billion in mandatory funding and additional funding to “reform the teaching profession” and for a new “universal” preschool, bringing the total for the department to roughly $100 billion.

What do we have to show for all this meddling? Just about every measure of educational achievement has remained flat, flat, flat as have high-school graduation rates.

Furthermore, the tests used to measure achievement in this country have been dumbed down to the point where students graduate from our pubic schools who can barely read their diplomas much less do basic math.

Why? Federal meddling and the ceding of public education to a union more interested in creating and protecting the jobs of more and more public school teachers (and making sure they aren’t tested for competency or rewarded for excellence) than they are about the business of educating students.

As a result, good teachers’ hands are tied. They cannot adequately discipline students or hold them accountable for poor performance. Students are simply passed on and, if they show up, they eventually graduate.

Despite leading the world in education spending, in international tests the U.S. comes up short, way short.

The answer from the Obama administration was similar to his answer for every other problem: more government intervention.

George W. Bush’s misguided “No Child Left Behind,” which allowed states to set their own standards, gave way to Obama’s “Common Core Standards,” or ObamaCore as it has been dubbed by opponents.

If “No Child” was government meddling, ObamaCore is government meddling on steroids. What exactly are the new “standards”? Like Obamacare (we have to pass the bill before we can find out what’s in it), states were required to sign on before the new “standards” were released.

The method used to achieve control of our schools is money. States that agreed to impose the tests as a requirement for a diploma get a pile of government money, and the tests are used to force a new curriculum on everyone, without any input from parents, teachers or local legislators. That effectively puts private, religious and even home schools under the thumb of the federal government.

It gets worse. Under ObamaCore, government agencies are to gather and store all types of sensitive information on every student from birth through all educational levels. Furthermore, this information can be shared with other agencies both public and private.

The ability to track children in this way is a mandate in the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child, an onerous treaty signed by Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright but, thankfully, never ratified by the United States. President Obama has called our failure to ratify the UNCRC “embarrassing.” It appears, he plans to implement it through the back door. Big Brother has given way to Bigger Brother.

Now that two of the standards are finally available, they have many education experts up in arms. The math standards are so poor, the only mathematician involved in the process refused to endorse them. In English, the classics are out. Informational texts are in. Among the suggested texts: The “problem” of global warming, the case for centralized (government controlled) health care and the importance of certain U.N. treaties that undermine our freedoms. Are you beginning to get the picture?

There is a reason our Constitution did not give the federal government the right to exert this kind of control, and our laws specifically prevent the feds from mandating, directing or controlling a school’s curriculum. If you can control a national curriculum, you can control the populace.

Bill Gates has put a lot of money behind this effort, as well as the Carnegie Corporation and News Corp mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Maybe their motives are completely altruistic. Then, again, maybe not.

Bills to reverse state decisions to accept ObamaCore have been filed in seven states. Hopefully, more will follow.

Last week, the Boy Scouts of America abandoned the time-honored principles enshrined in the oath and law and gave in to these bullies when leadership skillfully manipulated its voting delegates to approve a resolution to admit openly gay Scouts into its ranks.

The oath includes a “duty to God” and a pledge to keep oneself “morally straight.” The law proclaims that a Scout is – among other things – obedient, reverent, loyal and brave. The BSA leadership is none of the above. Therefore, the Scouts’ ability to lead young boys to become responsible God-fearing young men with these qualities has been hopelessly compromised.

Adolf Hitler introduced the principle of winning the battle of the mind with the “Big Lie” in his book “Mein Kampf”:

“… the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in the world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”

The Big Lie as practiced by gay rights activists:

• Homosexuality is not a choice. One is born that way.
• Homosexuality is normal and natural for these individuals.
• If you have any of these feelings, you should embrace them.
• If you do not agree with the above statements, you are displaying homophobic behavior (fear of homosexuals).
• And therefore you discriminate against gay individuals.

No one likes to be accused of discrimination or to be called names, which is part and parcel of the bullying process. However, to cave in to bullies is not bravery, it is cowardice.

I would be the first to admit that some people are “born gay” if there were scientific evidence to support such a claim. There is not!

Some people (a tiny fraction of a percent) are born with physical abnormalities that might predispose one to that lifestyle. These cases are 100 percent correctable. It often involves something as simple as hormone treatment.

In most cases, however, homosexuality is connected to a bad home environment with an absent father and/or domineering mother, sexual molestation or – more common today – something call imprinting (first sexual experience).

Several years ago, when homosexuality was first being introduced into the classroom, a teacher called my radio program to express support for my position that this was improper. Then, she told me that she was a lesbian and that it took her years to accept this about her life.

I said, “Tell me honestly. Was your first sexual encounter with someone of the same sex?”

There was a long silence. Then she said haltingly, “I was very young.”

“How young were you, honey?” I asked.

“I was 10 and the other girl was 12,” she said in a quivering voice barely above a whisper.

The story of how homosexuality was declared normal by the American Psychiatric Association is one of the most disturbing in modern medicine. In 1973, the APA took homosexuality out of its “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” not because of any new discovery, but because – like the Boy Scouts – it got tired of the bullying by gay activists.

There were several books written about these close encounters. A detailed account can be found in a highly sympathetic book by Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The politics of Diagnosis.”

It was shouting matches and guerrilla tactics used to break up APA meetings that caused the change, not science. The American Psychological Association quickly followed suit. In the years that followed, these professional trade associations went about eliminating all who voiced concerns that went counter to the gay line.

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is now the only truly scientific professional organization for therapists. Although efforts have been made to discredit NARTH by trying to link it to various religious organizations, NARTH is a secular organization dedicated to presenting the truth and offering hope and referrals to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.

NARTH provides useful research and provided some to the Boy Scouts. Unfortunately, it was ignored by the BSA leadership, which was more interested in corporate dollars than truth.

Thankfully, plans are being made to offer boys a scouting alternative much the way American Heritage Girls filled the void when the Girl Scouts decided to play God instead of honoring Him.

There is a fourth scandal that is equally serious but is not being addressed because this cover-up involves both the administration and Congress, Democrats and Republicans.

Last week, the Pentagon released a report on the soaring number of sexual assaults in the military. These crimes have increased a whopping 129 percent since 2004. The confidential portion of this report indicates that some 26,000 members of our armed forces were sexual assaulted last year alone. However, only 3,347 of these assaults were reported. The reasons are as obvious as they are disturbing.

There has been a smattering of news coverage with pundits and politicians expressing appropriate outrage, suggesting time-worn – but mostly worthless – ideas to improve the situation without addressing the real problem.

The military, unlike the rest of the country, does not function as a democracy. It can’t. In times of war, no one wants to be at the tip of the spear. Our combatants are assigned these positions. They don’t get to pick and choose.

We owe our freedom to millions of dedicated men and women who have answered the call to serve, voluntarily or involuntarily through the draft.

In times of peace, the military is often viewed as a career opportunity and has provided many with needed paychecks, benefits, skills and educations. However, it is not an equal opportunity employer! We’ve lost sight of that.

The purpose of the military is to win wars: to kill people and break things. War is an expensive, destructive, messy, unpleasant but necessary business. No one wants to go to war, even the most hardened military veteran, but at times wars are necessary. A highly trained fighting force of strong, young combatants must be maintained.

Over the years, military necessity has given way to political correctness, which has proved costly and unworkable. This didn’t happen overnight, but the Obama administration recently pulled the pin on two hand grenades that can finish the job by 1) lifting the ban on gays in the military and 2) setting in motion an incremental plan that will place women at the point of the spear in direct ground combat units.

The military has been playing with fire with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and by placing young male and female soldiers and sailors together in barracks and on ships and submarines at the time in their lives when hormones are raging.

Due to constant feminist pressure – not necessity– the line between combat and combat support slowly has been erased to the point that women are now in units that are more physically demanding, and close contact is inevitable.

Men often resent having to carry twice the work load in order to make up for the lack of strength of the female soldiers next to them who receive the same pay.

Also, these soldiers, sailors and airmen not only have to deal with the rigors of military life, but one where no one goes home at night, boredom often sets in and rank rules. No amount of sensitivity training is going to change that!

Late night comic Jay Leno runs a segment called “What Did You Think Was Going to Happen?” where he shows people setting themselves up for impossible stunts and suffering the inevitable consequences.

Don’t get me wrong. Sexual abuse should not be tolerated anywhere, especially in our military. However, the answer is not more sensitivity training. We’ve wasted millions of dollars on that already – and what have we got to show for it?

Among respondents to the military’s confidential survey, 6.1 percent of our military women were sexually assaulted over the past year. In the general population, it’s only about .02 percent – and the general population doesn’t undergo sensitivity training!

Even more astounding: The New York Times reported that the Pentagon extrapolated that, over the same time period, 13,900 of our strong, active-duty men were assaulted. How can this happen? Not being reported, but not surprising, is that almost all of these sexual assaults of men were committed by men.

Military life is difficult enough without putting our military personnel in situations where they are viewed as objects of sexual desire or become subjects of this brutal retaliation by their comrades or superiors.

Congress makes the rules that govern the military. The Obama administration attempted an end-run around Congress by making these policy changes, but Congress has the power to put a stop to it! Don’t be fooled.

There is a reason the Boy Scouts of America have not partnered with the Girl Scouts USA. The two organizations would appear to be natural affiliates, but at their core, they are now miles apart. That may be about to change.

The issue that has divided them are the principles on which the two organizations were founded: a belief in God and a pledge to abide by the moral truths that are revealed in His Word.

• In the ’70s, the Girl Scouts put feminist icon Betty Friedan on its national governing board. It wasn’t long before the Girl Scouts began purging its materials of all positive references to homemakers.
• In 1980, the organizations changed its policy on homosexuality and welcomed lesbians as Scouts and troop leaders.
• In 1993, the Girl Scouts took aim at the Creator himself, making God an option by inserting an asterisk by the word “God” in the Promise.

Due to public outrage and loss of enrollment, that asterisk was removed from the latest Girl Scout Handbook. Don’t be fooled. Instead, girls are simply being instructed that when reciting the Promise they are “free to substitute their own wording for God.” In other words, a girl is free to pledge to do her duty to herself as any good atheist would.

The Girl Scouts make it clear that they are a “secular organization” but allow God to come along as long as He doesn’t stir up any trouble or interfere with their “all inclusive” policy of accepting anyone and everything. Although the word “diversity” has replaced sexual orientation on the official GSUSA website, that policy remains in force and now includes transvestites.

You might say that Randall Stephenson, the influential chairman of AT&T, is the Boy Scouts’ Betty Friedan. As first vice-president of the BSA’s Executive Board, he is next in line to become president. Stephenson and his sidekick, James Turley, the CEO of Ernst & Young, persuaded the other board members to go along with a resolution to admit openly gay boys that will be voted on by the National Council on May 24.

Stephenson and Turley are between a rock and a hard place. Their companies bowed to political pressure and included “sexual orientation” – the term invented by homosexuals to make this practice appear to be immutable – in their non-discrimination policy.

How do they square this circle of channeling company funds into the BSA, an organization that restricts its membership to those who take an oath to “God and Country” and pledge to keep themselves “morally straight”? By leading the Boy Scouts away from their moral underpinnings.

These two should have been axed long ago but their companies have donated millions to the Boy Scouts, and it has become obvious that money is more important to this board than God.

By promoting this resolution they are hiding behind the premise that, since sexual conduct of any kind by Boy Scouts is contrary to the virtues of the organization, young people who declare themselves to be homosexual just come to that realization all by themselves.

The rest of the board is either intimidated or in denial. Their proposal is a slippery slope because it keeps the ban in place that prevents homosexuals from becoming Scout leaders. Anyone with half a brain knows this policy cannot stand.

In the past, the BSA has had its problems with sexual molestation, with over 99 percent of it homosexual in nature. They brought in so-called “experts” to whitewash this problem. Their experts point out that not all of these molesters “self-identify as homosexuals,” so they really don’t count.

The members who will be voting on this resolution need to examine what happen in the Girl Scouts.

In the 1997 book “On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on Their Scouting Experience,” Marcia Munson revealed that she was first introduced to lesbianism at a Girl Scout camp when she was only 13. Is the BSA really prepared for this?

While political correctness would have us believe that one is “born gay,” science provides evidence that homosexual desires develop primarily as a result of psychological and environmental influences and (here is the important part) early experiences.

The Bible says, “If anyone causes one of these little ones – those who believe in me – to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

When you throw out God’s principles, what’s next? Will the BSA go the way of the Girl Scouts and give the Creator the boot?

You can’t serve both God and money. It’s money that is the real issue here.

“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” – Mark Twain

Dealing with a sticky issue and want to pass the buck? The timeworn established practice is to conduct a study. That is how the Executive Committee responsible for governing the Boy Scouts of America, decided to deal with the issue of opening its ranks to homosexuals.

The results of this “study” led to a proposal that will be presented to roughly 1,400 voting members of its National Council on May 24. It is a compromise that will please no one: admit homosexual youth but keep the ban in place that prevents openly gay adults from becoming Scout leaders.

A closer look at the Executive Summary released to the media reveals the twisted logic and the true agenda of those charged with running this prestigious youth organization.

The “key findings” are revealing. Some are in italics below.

• Attitudes and opinions among Americans related to gay and lesbian relationships have changed rapidly over the past three years.

This is not about upholding the values that have made Scouting Scouting. It is about public opinion.

• Parents in three of four BSA regions oppose the current membership policy.

A closer look reveals it is not about the opinion of the parents of boys involved in Scouting. This survey had to include parents in general in order to reach this conclusion. It is well understood that conservative parents channel their boys into Scouting because of its emphasis on conservative values, while more liberal parents choose other activities for their children.

However, the same sleight-of-hand was used to make it appear that the majority of the boys in Scouting wish to change the policy.

Not true! In fact, three of the four BSA regions recommended “no change to the current policy.”

• Slightly more members of the Board and Advisory Council initially supported the current policy, but Board members reversed themselves to slightly opposing the current rules after responding to the scenarios.

In other words, members of the Board and Advisory Council were manipulated!

One surprise: Only 33 percent of those identified as “major donors” support a change, but – and this is key – the majority of current and former corporations that have or are now supporting Scouting support a change.

It is clear that this capitulation is about keeping those large corporate donors who have been pressured by gay-rights activists. Money is the bottom line!

But just how much money is really needed to fund Scouting? You need a few pup tents, a printing press, computers, a small national staff, local campgrounds and the insurance to protect the organization and its volunteers. You do not the tens of millions that are poured into the national organization and its sprawling reserves.

The Summit in West Virginia covers over 10,600 acres and, when finished, will soak up hundreds of millions of dollars. It will be more of a monument to the adults who run Scouting than the boys in the local troops.

By far the most troubling aspect of “the study” were the four “experts” on child safety who were consulted: David Finkelhor, W. Walter Menninger, Charol Shakeshaft and Victor Vieth. They are said to be “consistent” in findings such as this:

• The nearly universal opinion among sexual abuse authorities is that same-sex sexual interest or same-sex sexual experience, either in adults or youth, is NOT a risk factor for sexually abusing children.

This flies in the face of common sense: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men, and over one-third of these crimes are with boys. In other words, they are homosexual in nature. Since only between 1-3 percent of the overall population is gay, one must assume that homosexual men, in particular, are a problem for youth organizations.

At least two of these experts, Finkelhor and Shakeshaft, have explained this away by pointing out that a great number of the men who victimize young boys are not “self-identified homosexuals.”

Ah, that makes all the difference. We don’t count those who commit homosexual acts but don’t “self-identify” as homosexuals. We don’t count pedophiles who only want to commit homosexual acts with children. Also, we don’t count those who have been married to women or those the popular culture would identify as bisexual.

This proposed resolution puts the Boy Scouts on a slippery slope. Any rational person knows it will not stop with admitting self-identified gay youth. Who could defend the policy of admitting a gay teen and then kicking him out of Scouting on his 18th birthday?

Gay activists are patient. They take incremental victories. Apparently some activists on the BSA Executive Committee are willing to do the same.

Next week: Following the Girl Scouts’ example

The leadership of the Boy Scouts of America has proposed a similar arrangement in the effort to satisfy its members, volunteers and donors over the issue of admitting open homosexuals into its ranks.

The proposal, which will be voted on May 24, is to admit homosexual young people into Scouting, while keeping the ban in place that prevents homosexuals from serving as staff or adult leaders. This proposal satisfies no one and, if it goes through, will mean the death of Scouting as we know it.

To pretend that this baby can survive is, at best, self-denial or, at worse, hypocrisy!

The Scout Oath, which members pledge to keep, begins:

“On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country …”

Furthermore, a Scout pledges “To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”

Since all major religions condemn the practice of homosexuality in the strongest terms, it is as impossible for young people who declare themselves to be homosexuals to keep the oath, as it is for atheists, who also are barred from becoming Boy Scouts.

It is true that some liberal denominations or sects within religions have attempted to explain away the prohibitions on homosexuality, fornication and even adultery. They fool no one, least of all the Creator who designed and made us.

So how did the BSA Executive Committee, which crafted this resolution, attempt to square this circle?

The answer is in the whereases, which are part of the proposed amendment:

WHEREAS, Scouting is a youth program,
and any sexual conduct,
whether homosexual or heterosexual,
by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the
virtues of Scouting;

Hello! Homosexuality is a choice. One is not born that way as some claim. If that were the case there would be no former homosexuals. There is no gay gene. Science has found no biological basis for homosexuality, though not for lack of trying. Homosexuality is a practice, not a gender.

How does a young boy decide that he is a homosexual? It is by engaging in this sexual conduct.

It is no secret that surveys taken on gay issues like marriage show that the younger the respondents, the more likely they are to embrace the idea. The surveys taken by the Scouts in the run-up to this vote were no different.

Why? Because, we sat idly by and allowed homosexuality to be mainstreamed, promoted and, in fact, encouraged in our schools along with all manner of sexual activity.

Do the adults who drafted this resolution seriously believe that a young boy who “comes out” and declares himself to be homosexual and is demanding to be admitted to the Boy Scouts just came to that conclusion out of the blue? Seriously, are they really that naive?

A closer examination of the “findings” of the study commissioned by the Executive Committee reveals that the major force behind the push to admit homosexuals is not from its membership or the chartering organizations but from its corporate donors.

Gay-rights activists, though small in number, are bullies. Large corporations are particularly sensitive to this pressure. Most now have policy statements that include “sexual orientation” (the term invented by gay-rights activists to make this practice appear immutable) in their non-discrimination policy statements.

Over the years, these activists have turned up the heat on corporate donors to adhere to that non-discrimination policy by cutting their donations to the Boy Scouts. Many already have pulled out. Others are being pressured to do so.

That is why the Boy Scouts are attempting to cut the baby in half. This is not about upholding the high moral standards that have characterized the Boy Scouts from the very beginning. It is not even about pretending that boys who declare themselves to be homosexual are not engaging in this activity. It is about money.

The Executive Committee is attempting to shield itself from the righteous indignation of its membership by making members believe it is their idea. Let’s hope and pray that the voting delegates who assemble in May will figure it out. The sword is raised. The jury is out.

(Next week: A closer look at the study that led to this resolution.)

That means that the average taxpayer will work 29.4 percent of the year just to pay his or her tax bill. But not so fast – the Tax Foundation, which runs these numbers, does not include the amount of annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owned.

So you see, celebrating Tax Freedom Day would be like paying your family’s bills that come due each month while ignoring the amount you run up on those credit cards in order to meet all of your obligations.

This year, the federal government plans to borrow another $833 billion, but remember, that is best case. The year isn’t over yet.

If we add in the cost of all this borrowed money, Tax Freedom Day will not come until May 9, which is well over a third of the year. Under the old feudal system practiced in medieval Europe, the lords, who owned all the property, taxed the serfs one-third of what they produced, and we call them slaves!

It gets worse: In order to calculate Tax Freedom Day, the Tax Foundation divides all the taxes paid by our total national income. Bear in mind that roughly 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all, so the entire tax burden is borne by 54 percent of Americans. The rest get a free ride.

It’s worse still: Americans for Tax Reform Foundation adds in the cost of all those pesky regulations with which we are compelled to comply in order to come up with the number of days the average American must work to pay for the total cost of our behemoth government. Last year, it was a full 197 days, which pushed Cost of Government Day to July 15. That is over half the year!

An important note: This was the fourth straight year Cost of Government Day fell in July. Prior to the Obama administration, the COGD had never fallen later than the month of June.

It is true many of those regulations are borne by businesses and don’t affect you directly – but they all affect you indirectly and drive up the cost of everything you use or consume.

Ka-ching, Ka-ching! And so it goes. You work hard. You may make a decent salary, but at the end of the year you have little or nothing to show for it. Where did all that money go?

We have been poor stewards of a government that was won for us by the blood of our forefathers, one based on equality and personal responsibility.

Your local, state and federal tax bills are just the beginning. Here are some examples of the personal consumer taxes most of us pay each an every day, month and year without thinking:

• Gas and electric bill fees and taxes
• Water and sewer fees and taxes
• Federal, state and local gasoline tax
• TV cable/satellite fees and taxes
• Federal telephone surtax, excise tax and universal surcharge
• State telephone excise tax and surcharge
• Telephone minimum usage and recurring/nonrecurring charge tax
• Waste management tax
• Oil and gas assessment tax
• Air travel: $3.80 per segment plus a security fee and Passenger Facility Charges
• Hotel tax
• Car rental tax
• Road and bridge tolls
• Alcohol and cigarette tax
• Driver’s license renewal fee
• Passport fee
• Nature trail permit
• Watercraft registration and license
• State and national park permits and entrance fees
• New car surcharge
• Luxury and gas-guzzler car tax
• Recreational vehicle tax
• Jewelry taxes and surcharges
• Yacht and luxury boat taxes
• Hunting license
• Fishing license
• Bike license fee
• Dog permit/license
• Sports stadium tax

This is just a sample of some of the hidden taxes we pay and doesn’t include the countless taxes imposed on businesses large and small. The dirty little secret is that businesses don’t pay taxes. They are passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.

So take a long, hard look at the real cost of your government. And bear in mind: When you lose the ability to control a fair portion of what you earn, freedom is just an illusion.

The dreaded April 15 has come and gone, but if you think you have finished paying your taxes, you are sadly mistaken.

At that time, our only deterrence against a nuclear attack was something called MAD, which was short for Mutual Assured Destruction. It was an appropriate acronym. You nuke us; then we’ll nuke you – and together we will blow ourselves off the face of the earth and take the rest of the world with us. Even for Reagan, a man with a strong belief in God and the hereafter, that was a terrible option.

The left went crazy when he presented this idea. What happened to sitting cross-legged around a solar heat source with the rest of the world’s leaders and singing “Kumbaya”? “We’ll get rid of our nukes. You’ll do the same, and we’ll all be friends. Kumbaya, kumbaya.”

“It is impossible to hit a missile with a missile!” they whined. “It will blow up the budget and keep us from creating a perfect green world where every basic need is provided by the government. No, no we will not waste money on this Star Wars dream of yours!”

Despite, all the groans from the left, Reagan pursued his dream and this country – and many others – are much safer for it.

During the Gulf War, the Patriot anti-missile defense system was trotted out, and the world watched as lives were saved. Voila!

The left grudgingly had to admit that it was, indeed, possible to hit a missile with a missile! Gasp, Ronald Reagan had been right!

Nevertheless, the pressure from the left has been relentless, and these programs were scaled back. Today, there is no infallible space-based shield that Ronald Reagan envisioned. We do have limited land and sea-based missile defense, and, yes, we can thank God and Ronald Reagan for that.

However, thanks to the left, our ability to defend against weapons of mass destruction is still limited at best.

Not a pleasant thought in the face of madmen like Kim Jong-un, who has drawn up battle plans to hit our friends in South Korea and Guam as well as parts of the U.S. Many are downplaying his threats. Most doubt that he has the nuclear payload to go on an ICBM that can be lobbed over here. But what about the crazies in Iran? If not today, what about tomorrow or the day after that?

The truth is we don’t know just how mad these leaders are or exactly when they will have that capability – limited though it may be – but we do know they are working on it. Bear in mind, just one nuclear ICBM that successfully makes its way through our spotty defense system will spoil your whole day and make what happened at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, seem like small potatoes.

Personally, I thought it was a little tacky for the Obama administration to beat its chest and preen as it announced that it is increasing the number of our mid-range, land-based interceptors in Alaska in light of Kim Jong-un’s recent threats. For the most part, the media gave him yet another pass on it.

Wasn’t this the same Barack Obama who pushed to cut missile defense and canceled those Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors in Alaska planned by George W. Bush from 44 to 30 shortly after becoming president? Now, thanks to Obama, they will not be in place and operational until 2017. Thanks to the left, even when they are operational, our defense against these weapons still will not be impenetrable.

Reagan, like JFK who put us on a path to send men to the moon, was a visionary. Unfortunately, both of these men’s plans have been compromised. Funny, those who have squandered billions of our tax dollars trying to prove the theory of human-induced global warming never seem to tire of this extravagance, while shaking their heads at those of us who see space as a starting point, not an end.

Was it too much to expect Obama to say, “Thank you, Ronald Reagan that we now have this technology – the technology that I first canceled and now am willing to deploy”?

Instead of crowing about his latest decision, eating a little crow would be much more appropriate.

It is frustrating to see so many pro-family advocates and the attorneys representing them in court completely drop the ball when the answer is relatively simple.

There are only two reasons to marry: 1) to make a vow before God and have the union recognized by the church; and 2) to have the union recognized by the government.

Since all major religions condemn homosexuality in the strongest terms, reason No. 1 is an attempt to “feel good” at best.

So, why does a couple seek to have their union recognized by the government? Conversely, why do so many heterosexual couples no longer bother?

It can be summed up in one word: “benefits.” There is an axiom in government: The more you reward something the more you get of it. The more you tax something, the less you get of it.

The government has long recognized that it costs money to raise good productive citizens. When the income tax was first established in 1913, it sought to put a “hedge of protection” around the traditional family to shield it from this burden. The personal exemption was established to do just that.

However, if everyone is allow inside the hedge, the hedge – for all practical purposes – no longer exists.

Unfortunately, this personal exemption was not indexed for inflation, so the hedge has all but disappeared. While, there are some benefits to marriage, most can be achieved by other legal means, and the ones that still exists don’t really amount to much.

Presently, the laws on marriage are a confused mess. There are now over 1,100 tax benefits, rights and, yes, burdens (known as the marriage penalty) linked to marriage. In 2004, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that if gay marriage were recognized, it would bring in another $1 billion a year over 10 years.

So why are so many gay couples trying to get into it? The perceived benefit is acceptance.

And why do so many heterosexual couples avoid marriage entirely? Benefits.

A young, single mother is most likely eligible for free medical care, free housing, free food under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more free food under the WIC program, free child care and free educational benefits. Her partner also may be eligible for some of these benefits. However, if they marry, most of these benefits go away.

This not only lessens the chance that children conceived outside of marriage will grow up in a stable home, it creates dependency and adds to our burdensome national debt.

Our whole system has been turned upside down and children are the biggest losers!

Children raised in intact marriages do better in school, are less likely to do drugs, go to jail, have out-of-wedlock births and thus be a drain on society.

So what about the children living in homosexual households? Despite all the rhetoric, they are few in number. However, most of these children were acquired by one or both partners who were in former heterosexual marriages or relationships.

To be sure, some homosexual couples adopt or conceived through artificial insemination. Although these children are brought into these homes as a result of careful planning, they are also likely to suffer negative outcomes.

A study by sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin, published in Social Science Research, is the most exhaustive study to date on this subject. It completely overturned the conventional wisdom that there is no measurable difference between children growing up in intact households with a mother and a father and those raised in homosexual households.

Unlike previous narrow studies that focused on minor children who are still under the influence of their parents, the Regnerus study was done with adults. His study found that those adults who have a parent who is or has been in a same-sex relationship are subject to the same unfortunate outcomes as those raised in single-parent homes, but also are:

• 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually” by a parent or adult caregiver;
• 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will;
• more likely to have “attachment” problems;
• 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual.

These things are much too important to be ignored in deference to political correctness!

The real question is this: Has traditional marriage outlived its usefulness? If the answer is “no,” then take away the disincentives that keep heterosexuals from marrying and rebuild that hedge!